We are very concerned this new proposed rule will negatively impact the
travel and tourism industry, the real estate market in resort areas like
Florida, and the millions of jobs and small businesses that represent 90% of
this sector, while doing little to substantially address concerns about
terrorism and visa overstayers. INS’ stated objective in proposing this rule
are: 1) to prevent aliens from planning and executing acts of terrorism against
the United States, and 2) to reduce the likelihood that an alien will establish
permanent ties in the United States and remain in the country illegally.
However, INS has not demonstrated a clear link between its proposed rule and how
the proposal leads to achieving these objectives. The rule neither
provides new tools to gather intelligence on suspected terrorists nor creates
new mechanisms to enforce limits on an individual’s stay. Terrorists are
unlikely to arrive without having an explanation of their intended stay that
would satisfy an inspector, nor would they care about overstaying their
visas. We believe this rule will do little to enhance our security or help
achieve our law enforcement aims.

The proposed rule generated more than 10,000 comments, many calling for
maintaining the current rule or substantially altering the proposed rule. The
proposed rule was also critiqued during a House Small Business Committee hearing
on June 19, 2002. During the hearing, Chairman Manzullo ordered the INS to meet
with business leaders. However, neither that hearing nor this meeting
clarified why changes to the existing rule were necessary, what security purpose
they would serve, or how the Service would take into account the potential
hundreds of millions of dollars this rule, if implemented, would cost our
economy. Our specific concerns about the proposed rule follow.

The proposed rule would deter international travel to the U.S. by
creating uncertainty about the actual admission period. Without
any minimum period of admission, legitimate travelers cannot be guaranteed an
adequate period of time for their visit. Furthermore, the "case-by-case"
inquiry at our ports-of-entry could result in massive delays and backlogs and/or
the "default" period of 30 days being granted in a majority of cases (which
would severely restrict longer-term visits). The uncertainty of the actual
period of admission already has led to cancellations of planned travel to the
U.S., and threatens to cost our nation hundreds of millions of
dollars.

The proposed rule would increase the likelihood that travelers would
inadvertently overstay their admission. While persons who are
inclined to remain unlawfully would remain regardless of whether their admission
period is 30 days or six months, the proposed rule would lead to additional
inadvertent overstays as international visitors apply for extensions and remain
in the U.S. for what they believe to be a legitimate request for an
extension. When applications are denied because they do not fit the narrow
scope of extensions permitted under the proposed rule, travelers will have
technically overstayed. This unintentional overstay will: create procedural
problems for future re-entry into the U.S.; add to the uncertainty created by
this proposed rule which will further deter international travel to the U.S.;
and create additional, unnecessary paperwork burdens for the immigration
service.

The proposed rule would render the U.S. less attractive to potential
investors. Over 4.5 million international visitors in 1999
entered the U.S. to conduct business. Many were prospective investors who,
in the future, will seek to do business in other countries because the proposed
rule will make it difficult for them to research and effectively plan their
business investment, or predict with any degree of certainty the length of time
critical personnel could remain in the U.S. For example, the proposed rule
already is having a negative impact on the real estate market in many parts of
the U.S. International investors are pulling out of transactions or putting
their homes on the market because of the uncertainties created by the proposed
rule.

The proposed rule would negatively impact the residential real
estate industry. Many B-2 pleasure visitors purchase homes in the
U.S, especially in resort areas like Florida, in order to spend part of the year
in this country. While “seasonal or occasional” homeowners are included
among the category of visitors entitled to an extension of stay, this extension
is not automatic and is subject to the discretion and subjective decision of an
immigration office. This uncertainty would dissuade many potential homebuyers
from purchasing homes here, and may lead others to sell their existing homes and
buy in countries perceived to be more welcoming to visitors.

The proposed rule would negatively impact or deter Canadian
visitors. Canadians routinely have been allowed a standard
6-month admission period. The proposed rule is silent on whether or not
this change would affect Canadian admissions. Many Canadian “snow
birds” that own homes in the U.S. and winter here are also concerned for the
real estate reasons mentioned above.

The proposed rule would severely circumscribe the ability of
multinational employers to use the B-1 for longer-term business trips.
The uncertainty surrounding the B visitors’ initial period of
admission, together with the restrictions for extensions of stay, would render
the B-1 useless for this legitimate purpose. The increased time and cost
required to obtain unnecessary nonimmigrant working visas to assign key
personnel to the U.S. for brief periods of time would result in international
companies opting not to do business in this country.

For these reasons we urge you to keep the current visa rules in place.
However, if the proposed rule moves forward, we urge you to make the following
changes:

The INS must provide this specific guidance to foreign visitors
making their travel plans. It is critical that such travelers know what
is expected of them from INS inspectors. These travelers must have a high degree
of certainty that their legitimate trips will not be arbitrarily shortened or
denied. INS must communicate clearly to all international travelers -
prior to their departure - specifically what information will be needed from the
traveler for their admission into the U.S.

Maintain a minimum period of admission so as not to deter
international travel and tourism. Without a fixed minimum period of
admission, international travelers will not be guaranteed adequate time for
their proposed visit. The rule provides no assurances that legitimate
international visitors will receive the time they need to complete the trip or
time to deal with unforeseen or uplanned events during the trip. No
businessperson, vacationer, or family – U.S. or not – will spend thousands of
dollars on an international trip with no idea of how long they can stay. The
uncertainty of the variable admission period will drive international visitors
to other countries with fixed minimum admission periods. The small businesses
most affected by this proposed rule have indicated that the current six-month
minimum admission period should be maintained. However, if it must be
reduced, a 90-day minimum admission would help provide travelers a fixed
timeframe within which they could plan a trip, and would be consistent with the
statutory admission period for Visa Waiver visitors.

Maintain current law with regard to extension of
stay. The proposed rule would severely limit the circumstances
under which a traveler could apply to extend a stay beyond the period granted at
entry. Travelers would be ineligible for visa extensions, absent urgent,
“unexpected events” unknown at entry, or limited exceptions for humanitarian
reasons and persons who “owned” property in the U.S. The limitation on
extension eligibility would prohibit travelers from extending their stay for
legitimate, if not “urgent” needs, and prevent longer-term visitors who may
either rent or occupy property through third parties from extending their stay
to make full use of their real estate.

Because the current standards for granting an extension provide a high level
of scrutiny, there is no reason to change them for the more restrictive
standards in the proposed rule. Under current law, visitors are asked to
show that they have a residence abroad that they do not intend to abandon, that
they were unable to accomplish the temporary purpose of the trip within the
period granted, that they are not attempting to prolong their stay indefinitely
and that they are capable of maintaining themselves financially for any period
of stay requested.

Maintain the current maximum period of stay of one year.
The proposed rule would reduce the “maximum” period of stay given at entry to
six months from the current one year. This provision would undermine the
ability of certain family members of long-term nonimmigrants (such as workers,
investors and intracompany transferees) to accompany their principal family
member, a long-standing permissible use of the B-2 visa. It also would
limit the ability of potential foreign investors (many of whom invest in small
business) to adequately explore business opportunities.

Provide a specific exemption for "seasonal or occasional" homeowners
and renters. No investor is likely to purchase a home in the United
States if they are not certain they will be able to spend more than thirty days
here or that they will be able to extend their stay once here. We believe that
homeowners should be treated differently from other visitors because homeowners
are much more easily tracked while here in the Unites States because INS would
know their permanent address. They would also seem to be far less likely to be a
security threat because they are members of the community. It is also unlikely
that they would overstay their visa since they would plan to return to the
United States (and their “seasonal” home) the following year. INS should adopt
special rules for these “seasonal or occasional” homeowners, including an
automatic six-month admission period. INS should also extend this presumption to
visitors with long-term leases that can be verified by INS. These visitors must
be assured of a six-month admission period before they arrive in the United
States so they can properly plan to spend part of the year here. The current INS
proposal is likely to have negative consequences for this special group of
visitors without advancing the stated purposes of the proposed
regulation.

As stated above, we would strongly urge you to weigh the enormous benefits
international visitation and investment bring to the U.S. and seriously consider
modifying the rule along the lines detailed above.